randomized trial of intensive telephone education and ... · • recruited from gim and cardiology...

Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine

Randomized Trial of Intensive Telephone Education and Counseling to Overcome Disparities in Knowledge, Self-Care Behaviors and Symptom Severity for Patients with Heart Failure and Low Health Literacy

David W. Baker, MD, MPHHealth Literacy Annual Research ConferenceOctober 19th, 2010 Supported by NHLBI grant R01 HL081257

BackgroundHeart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is a condition in which the heart does not pump blood adequatelyFluid retention, shortness of breath, fatigueFrequent hospitalizations, deathPatients with low literacy at increased risk

2

Self-Care Education in HFPatients with HF need to learn self-care

Low salt diet, self-monitoring, action plan, exercise

The “dose” of education required for most patients to master self-care behaviors unclearMost patients need repetition to learn key points and reinforcement to remember them

Health literacy may be a barrier to learningVocabulary, low baseline knowledge Most studies have not measured health

literacy

3

Study ObjectivesTo conduct a multi-site randomized trial to examine the effect of two different levels of intensity of education and self-care training on knowledge, self-efficacy, self-care behaviors, and HF-related quality of life (HF-QOL)

Single 40 minute education sessionSingle session plus series of phone calls designed to reinforce learning and behavioral goals

To examine whether the effects of these different levels of intensity of education varied by patients’health literacy

4

Analyzed: n =259 (86%)

Failed to complete 1-month call (n=43)¨ Died (n=2)¨ Refused/did not return call (n=41)

Brief Education Intervention (n=302)

¨

Failed to complete 1-month call (n=31)¨ Died (n=0)¨ Refused/did not return call (n=31)

Teach to Goal (n=303)

¨

Randomized(n=605)

Study Design

1‐Month Telephone Interview (blinded)1‐Month Telephone Interview (blinded)

• 4 Academic Medical Centers• Recruited from GIM and Cardiology Clinics• Clinical HF, symptoms in last 6 months

1‐Month Telephone Interview (blinded)1‐Month Telephone Interview (blinded)

Analyzed: n =272(90%)

6

Single educational session (~ 40 minutes) Medication adherence; salt avoidance; exercise; daily

self-check; and action planning in case of exacerbationCaring for Your Heart: Living Well with Heart Failure

Given a new digital scale

Teach to Goal (TTG)Taught to adjust dose of diuretic

to maintain target weight

5-8 calls over the next month to reinforce key learning goals

RandomizationRandomization

Brief Education Intervention (BEI)No further intervention

Study MeasuresGeneral HF knowledge (8 items)“Someone with HF should weigh himself or herself..”

Salt knowledge (10 items)“Nutrition labels show how much sodium there

is per serving. What is the "safe" number?”

Self-efficacy (10 items)“How sure are you that you can tell when your

heart failure is getting worse?”

7

Study Measures (cont)

Self-care behaviors (10 items)“How often do you weigh yourself?”

HF-QOL – HF Symptom Scale* (7 items)“How much of the time did your heart failure stop you from doing the things you wanted to do because you were short of breath?”

8

Baker DW, et al. J Cardiac Failure 2004

Statistical AnalysesNet difference in change between BEI and TTG groups

T-tests for independent samples

Repeated analyses stratified by literacyShort TOFHLA at baseline

Adequate vs. marginal/inadequate

9

10

Brief Educational Teach PIntervention (N=302) to Goal (N=303)

Age, mean ± SD 60.3 ± 12.3 61.1 ± 13.8 0.49

Race/Ethnicity, N (%) 0.73

White, non‐Hispanic 122 (40) 111 (37)

Hispanic 43 (14) 54 (18)

African American 114 (38) 118 (39)

Other/ Missing 23 (7) 19 (6)

Male, N (%) 156 (52) 158 (52) 0.90

Language: English, N (%) 261 (88) 261 (87) 0.67

Literacy, mean TOFHLA ±SD 24.5 ± 12.4 24.0 ± 12.2 0.63

NYHA Class, N (%) 0.89

I 60 (20) 54 (18)

II 152 (50) 152 (50)

III/IV 90 (30) 97 (32)

Baseline Characteristics

11

Participants with Inadequate Literacy Had Lower Baseline Knowledge & Self-Efficacy

Baseline Absolute Change: Baseline to Follow‐Up

Net Difference in Change Between

Groups

p

BEI TTG BEI TTG

General Knowledge (8 items)

Overall 6.3 6.1 +0.30 +0.70 0.40 (0.11, 0.69) 0.008

Inadequate 5.5 5.4 +0.32 +0.80 0.48 (‐0.13, 1.09) 0.12

Adequate 6.6 6.5 +0.29 +0.65 0.35 (0.04, 0.67) 0.03

Salt Knowledge (10 items)

Overall 7.7 7.4 +0.37 +0.90 0.52 (0.26, 0.79) <0.001

Inadequate 7.3 6.8 +0.12 +0.71 0.59 (0.04, 1.15) 0.04

Adequate 7.9 7.7 +0.50 +0.99 0.50 (0.21, 0.78) 0.001

Self‐Efficacy (10 items)

Overall 5.0 4.8 +0.38 +1.01 0.63 (0.16, 1.10) 0.009

Inadequate 4.8 4.3 +0.19 +0.90 0.71 (‐0.20, 1.63) 0.13

Adequate 5.1 5.0 +0.47 +1.06 0.59 (0.05, 1.14) 0.03

12

Knowledge and Self-Efficacy Improved More in the TTG Group



Groups

p

BEI TTG BEI TTG


Overall 6.3 6.1 +0.30 +0.70 0.40 (0.11, 0.69) 0.008Inadequate 5.5 5.4 +0.32 +0.80 0.48 (‐0.13, 1.09) 0.12

Adequate 6.6 6.5 +0.29 +0.65 0.35 (0.04, 0.67) 0.03


Overall 7.7 7.4 +0.37 +0.90 0.52 (0.26, 0.79) <0.001Inadequate 7.3 6.8 +0.12 +0.71 0.59 (0.04, 1.15) 0.04

Adequate 7.9 7.7 +0.50 +0.99 0.50 (0.21, 0.78) 0.001


Overall 5.0 4.8 +0.38 +1.01 0.63 (0.16, 1.10) 0.009Inadequate 4.8 4.3 +0.19 +0.90 0.71 (‐0.20, 1.63) 0.13

Adequate 5.1 5.0 +0.47 +1.06 0.59 (0.05, 1.14) 0.03

13

Knowledge and Self-Efficacy Improved More in the TTG Group for Both Inadequate and Adequate Literacy



Groups

p

BEI TTG BEI TTG


Overall 6.3 6.1 +0.30 +0.70 0.40 (0.11, 0.69) 0.008

Inadequate 5.5 5.4 +0.32 +0.80 0.48 (‐0.13, 1.09) 0.12Adequate 6.6 6.5 +0.29 +0.65 0.35 (0.04, 0.67) 0.03


Overall 7.7 7.4 +0.37 +0.90 0.52 (0.26, 0.79) <0.001

Inadequate 7.3 6.8 +0.12 +0.71 0.59 (0.04, 1.15) 0.04Adequate 7.9 7.7 +0.50 +0.99 0.50 (0.21, 0.78) 0.001


Overall 5.0 4.8 +0.38 +1.01 0.63 (0.16, 1.10) 0.009

Inadequate 4.8 4.3 +0.19 +0.90 0.71 (‐0.20, 1.63) 0.13Adequate 5.1 5.0 +0.47 +1.06 0.59 (0.05, 1.14) 0.03

14

At the One-Month Follow-Up, Knowledge and Self-Efficacy Remained Lower for Those with Inadequate vs Adequate Literacy Follow‐Up

BEI TTG


Inadequate 5.9 6.2

Adequate 6.9 7.1


Inadequate 7.4 7.5

Adequate 8.4 8.7


Inadequate 5.0 5.2

Adequate 5.6 6.1

All Participants AdequateBEI BEI BEITTG TTG TTG

Changes in Mean Self‐Care ScoresBaseline ( ) and One‐Month Follow‐Up ( )

Mean Self‐Care Scores Similar for BEI and TTG Groups

Mean Self‐Care Scores Lower for Those with

Lower Literacy

Marginal/Inadequate

All ParticipantsBEI BEI BEITTG TTG TTG

Self‐Care Scores Improved More in the TTG Group than the BEI Group

AdequateMarginal/Inadequate

Δ = 1.8 Δ = 3.2

Net Δ = +1.4; p < 0.001

BEI BEI BEITTG TTG TTG

Change in Self-Care and the Advantage of TTG Similar for Literacy Subgroups

All Participants AdequateMarginal/Inadequate

Δ = 1.7 Δ = 3.2Δ = 1.9 Δ = 3.2Net Δ = +1.5

Net Δ = +1.3

BEI BEI BEITTG TTG TTG

At Follow-Up, Self-Care Scores Remained Lower for Patients with Marginal/Inadequate Literacy Compared to Adequate Literacy


BEI BEIBEITTG TTGTTG

HF‐QOL Improved for those in the TTG Group but not for those in the BEI Group


P < 0.001

Δ = -0.6 Δ = 6.7

Net Δ = +7.3; p < 0.001

BEI BEIBEITTG TTGTTG

Relative Benefits of TTG Similar for those with Inadequate & Adequate Literacy


Δ = 3.8 Δ = 9.4Δ = -2.7 Δ = 5.3

Net Δ = +5.6Net Δ = +8.0

ConclusionsThe TTG strategy of progressive, reinforcing telephone education and counseling improved knowledge, self efficacy, self-care, and HF-QOL more than a single education session (BEI)

The TTG strategy was superior regardless of patients’ literacy level

However, the TTG intervention did not narrow the disparities in knowledge and self-care behaviors that existed by literacy at baseline

21

Limitations

Conducted at four academic medical centers

Generalizability unclear

Short-term follow upDo not know if improvements/differences will be sustained

22

Future Directions

Determine whether changes and differences seen at 1 month are sustained with longer follow up

Examine differences in hospitalization rates

Examine pathways (mediators) by which the intervention improved quality of life

23

Thanks to Our Study TeamUniversity of North Carolina,Chapel Hill Michael Pignone (PI) Darren A DeWalt Victoria Hawk Mark Holmes Brian Erman Morris Weinberger Kim BroucksouOlive View-UCLA Medical Centerand the UCLA School of Nursing

Aurelia Macabasco-O'Connell

Northwestern University,Feinberg SOM

David W Baker Bernice Ruo Kathy L. Grady

University of California, San Francisco/ San FranciscoGeneral Hospital Dean Schillinger Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo

randomized trial of intensive telephone education and ... · • recruited from gim and cardiology...

Documents